But other than that...the purported "Tulpa"...From everything I have read, there seems to be nothing that supports the idea of it being, in fact, an entity in and of itself.

I read a lot of the link you gave the other day, and while there was a lot of talk about how creating a Tulpa is a life-long responsibility, because if you turn your back on it, the Tulpa will have no one to interact with, etc, there is still nothing there which actually leads toward the notion that it does, in fact, have its own consciousness, and is not a manifestation in your own mind of some sort of self-hypnosis, where it might be able to find things in your memory which you had forgotten, or to hold, even initiate conversations and whatnot...but if you WERE to decide to stop interacting with it, other than there being withdrawal of the kind which comes with any addiction, there would be no actual entity punished, abused or destroyed. It might scar your own psyche a bit, no doubt feeling a guilt akin to disowning your own child or best friend, but I simply cannot fathom the notion of the Tulpa itself having enough self-awareness to feel any suffering of its own. Any suffering you might sense would be your own reaction to what you felt was a betrayal.

There is also the fact that, according to your profile, you are only 15...and that alone comes with all sorts of obsessions and abilities which we later grow out of. As I mentioned in a previous post, there is a lot about this which is really heart-wrenching when it happens, and that's why I am not condemning this whole practice...it seems that there might be a lot of good which could come with the achievement of that sort of control of the imaginitive centers of your mind...but it also puts you on an emotional level which many of us have long since lived through and discovered that while the loss of some of that credulity, innocence and creativity can be a painful thing, many of the ideas which consumed us back then really don't have a lot to do with reality.

But other than that...the purported "Tulpa"...From everything I have read, there seems to be nothing that supports the idea of it being, in fact, an entity in and of itself.

I read a lot of the link you gave the other day, and while there was a lot of talk about how creating a Tulpa is a life-long responsibility, because if you turn your back on it, the Tulpa will have no one to interact with, etc, there is still nothing there which actually leads toward the notion that it does, in fact, have its own consciousness, and is not a manifestation in your own mind of some sort of self-hypnosis, where it might be able to find things in your memory which you had forgotten, or to hold, even initiate conversations and whatnot...but if you WERE to decide to stop interacting with it, other than there being withdrawal of the kind which comes with any addiction, there would be no actual entity punished, abused or destroyed. It might scar your own psyche a bit, no doubt feeling a guilt akin to disowning your own child or best friend, but I simply cannot fathom the notion of the Tulpa itself having enough self-awareness to feel any suffering of its own. Any suffering you might sense would be your own reaction to what you felt was a betrayal.

There is also the fact that, according to your profile, you are only 15...and that alone comes with all sorts of obsessions and abilities which we later grow out of. As I mentioned in a previous post, there is a lot about this which is really heart-wrenching when it happens, and that's why I am not condemning this whole practice...it seems that there might be a lot of good which could come with the achievement of that sort of control of the imaginitive centers of your mind...but it also puts you on an emotional level which many of us have long since lived through and discovered that while the loss of some of that credulity, innocence and creativity can be a painful thing, many of the ideas which consumed us back then really don't have a lot to do with reality.

I'm 16 actually. (July 10th 1997)And your post was rather a derailment, as the topic is for asking questions, not making statements.Lastly, where is every one here coming up with "A tulpa is not a separate entity."?I have stated several times that i agree, so why bring it up even more? Do you want me to lie or something? I don't know.But I do believe that tulpae are distinct, in some form, neuroscience is odd...

Logged

Rule 1: No pooftas. Rule 2: No maltreating the theists, IF, anyone is watching. Rule 3: No pooftas. Rule 4: I do not want to see anyone NOT drinking after light out. Rule 5: No pooftas. Rule 6: There is NO...rule 6.

Lastly, where is every one here coming up with "A tulpa is not a separate entity."?I have stated several times that i agree, so why bring it up even more?

You are positive that a tulpa is not a separate entity, okay.

Is that your "final answer"?

I have been back through all five pages of this thread to see if there was something I had missed – and the amount of contradiction I found was quite incredible.On the one hand, you assert that tulpa are “simply” an advanced fantasy friend, not a separate entity. (all bolds mine)

Quote from: Angus and Alexis

.....A tulpa is a fantasy friend..........A tulpa is always going to be you, it cannot just split your brain in half like some kind of messed up parasite..........tulpae are more advanced than imaginary friends, i never said they were exactly the same...........I was always against tulpae being MPD..........tulpae are existent mentally, like mind talk and imaginary friends..........And tulpae are not alive, that is like saying a sentient computer is alive..........tulpae are as nice or mean as you make them, or as influences makes them..........tulpae are not entirely separate, please stop bringing it up...........TULPAE CAN'T DO THINGS UNLESS THEY ARE FIRST GIVEN THE ABILITY TO DO SO *consent*.....

All well and good – it’s a souped-up imaginary friend, not alive, not capable of taking over, not a separate entity. But then there is all of this:

Quote from: Angus and Alexis

.....Tulpae are fully self aware (when completed) and are capable of self action..........A tulpa can feel love..........It has as much (motor control) as you allow it to have...generally.............According to some on the tulpa forums, (it can become the dominant personality)..........A tulpa can apparently lock you in your mind..........Tulpae can be given any traits the creator wants, but tulpae will almost always deviate from the wanted traits...........They can affect the creator..........they can make an almost exact sensation of touch to their creators..........Sadly, some people have apparently been taker over...........if it isn't sentient, it is not a tulpa...........Tulpae are potentially dangerous, yes...........a tulpa has a personality, A form, voice, emotions, etc. Generally all the human traits...........tulpae dislike being altered...........Alexis (annoyingly) chose her form, yet i had other plans...........tulpae are capable of doing things themselves, and often start doing so automatically without consent.....

Read back through this second set of quotes, and explain in what way exactly all those traits (all your own words) mean the tulpa is NOT a separate and distinct entity? How they are SO dissimilar from a person with MPD?

Because what you have said there is that a tulpa, that "intelligence" you have created, can make its own decisions, dislike being forced to change, has a full personality with all human traits, are self-aware, capable of taking action on their own, can affect the creator, take them over, and lock them in their own mind. So please - explain how a tulpa is NOT a separate entity, because anything that has all those abilities sounds exactly like a separate entity to me.

If you stand behind that second bunch of your quotes, then at the VERY least you are creating something that is indistinguishable from MPD. A specifically dangerous second entity, as "alive" and conscious and sentient as any one of us, with independent will and desire, and the ability to bring itself to the fore and take over your body.

Creating a tulpa is possibly the most stupid and dangerous activity you can take within your own mind, if they are as real as you imply.

Read back through this second set of quotes, and explain in what way exactly all those traits (all your own words) mean the tulpa is NOT a separate and distinct entity? How they are SO dissimilar from a person with MPD?

Because what you have said there is that a tulpa, that "intelligence" you have created, can make its own decisions, dislike being forced to change, has a full personality with all human traits, are self-aware, capable of taking action on their own, can affect the creator, take them over, and lock them in their own mind. So please - explain how a tulpa is NOT a separate entity, because anything that has all those abilities sounds exactly like a separate entity to me.

If you stand behind that second bunch of your quotes, then at the VERY least you are creating something that is indistinguishable from MPD. A specifically dangerous second entity, as "alive" and conscious and sentient as any one of us, with independent will and desire, and the ability to bring itself to the fore and take over your body.

Creating a tulpa is possibly the most stupid and dangerous activity you can take within your own mind, if they are as real as you imply.

Rule 1: No pooftas. Rule 2: No maltreating the theists, IF, anyone is watching. Rule 3: No pooftas. Rule 4: I do not want to see anyone NOT drinking after light out. Rule 5: No pooftas. Rule 6: There is NO...rule 6.

I keep returning to this thread with the horrid fascination of someone who can’t help lifting the Bandaid to look at a suppurating abscess.

The entire premise is a construct:

Person with too much time and too little brain entertainment thinks of something.Said person moves to the next level and convinces himself that his own thoughts are independent of his own mind.Said person then tells others.He then receives objection/explanationsHe is so wrapped up in his own thoughts and so unwilling to abandon an idea that is getting him so much attention that he starts “explaining”.He has complete freedom to “explain” as there are absolutely no restrictions, no matter how ludicrous, upon the form of the new personality: it can do anything and can defy all known laws. It does not dawn on him that the whole construction is unfalsifiable.Rather than realise that the unfalsifiable is not true, he concludes the opposite: “The unfalsifiable must be true.”Said person now possesses a paradigm shifting revelation and finds it his holy and messianic mission to tell the world.

Of such things is madness made.

A short parable:

Two students lived in a flat. When the first returned, the second told him that there had been a robbery. The second explained that a man had come to the door and said that he had come to repair the video-recorder.

The first observed that they did not have a video-recorder. The second replied that the man seemed to know a lot about video-recorders, so he let him in.

The first observed again that they did not have a video-recorder. The second replied that the man had specified a VHS video-recorder.

The first observed again that they did not have a video-recorder. The second replied that the man had many tools and much equipment to repair video-recorders.

The first observed again that they did not have a video-recorder. The second replied that the man had gone straight to the televison – the very place where a VHS video-recorder would be.

The first observed again that they did not have a video-recorder. The second replied that the man diagnosed the problem of poor reception on the TV as being down to video-recorder problems.

The first observed again that they did not have a video-recorder. The second replied that this was the whole problem.

The first observed that the man who came had taken the TV, computers, cameras, money and other valuables. The second said the first was missing the point.

The moral is that nature has equipped some people with critical thinking skills and to encourage the improvement of the species, those who lack them are penalised by what can be broadly described as a tax on stupidity. Unfortunately, as a result of stupidity, we all have to pay this tax.

Here in this thread, we are playing along with a deluded premise. Are we paying stupidity tax?

Logged

Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Isn't that a tad bit harsh?First off, you're assuming i am an idiot.Secondly it is off topic. (By a moderator i might add.)Lastly, this is the chatter section of the forum, its made for anything, right?

EDIT: I might add, how exactly does a tulpa is defies laws, what laws? I mean, the brain can do all kinds of crazy stuff, for example, there is a guy who can raise his body temperature using his mind, then there is all the other kinds of *sic* mental disorders that lead to normally impossible things (MPD, schizophrenia, etc).I must admit it is only fair for you to post such things, but I did not come here as a "messiah" of tulpae (how would that even work?). I only wanted a nice Q&A...If you feel like you must, lock this thread, its been derailed long enough anyway...I guess i will just start posting atheist stuff...

« Last Edit: September 29, 2013, 09:48:45 AM by Angus and Alexis »

Logged

Rule 1: No pooftas. Rule 2: No maltreating the theists, IF, anyone is watching. Rule 3: No pooftas. Rule 4: I do not want to see anyone NOT drinking after light out. Rule 5: No pooftas. Rule 6: There is NO...rule 6.

I'm 16 actually. (July 10th 1997)And your post was rather a derailment, as the topic is for asking questions, not making statements.Lastly, where is every one here coming up with "A tulpa is not a separate entity."?I have stated several times that i agree, so why bring it up even more? Do you want me to lie or something? I don't know.But I do believe that tulpae are distinct, in some form, neuroscience is odd...

Fifteen or sixteen, my point still stands. You are very young, and your mind still has a lot of maturing ahead of it. You may be fairly intelligent for your age, but a mid-teen nonetheless.

As for a statement "derailing" the thread, I'm not sure you really have a case for that. A statement, in this case, can easily be turned to a question without really altering anything. If I had prefaced my post with, "the way it sounds to me", and followed it up with "is that right, or does it make sense at all?", would that have made a difference? You can still answer the points made.

As for whether or not this thread should be locked (as you bring up in a further post), I don't know. There's still a lot which is interesting about the premise, and it could probably be discussed with or without you. As long as you keep contradicting yourself in your statements as much as you have been, there isn't much we can really learn from you specifically about the theories of Tulpae. Not that there seems to be much in the way of concrete ideas of what they are anyway. One of the links you posted said something to the effect that there was probably a different idea of exactly what a Tulpa was for every person who had played with creating one. Hmm...sounds just like Jesus.

Anyway, no one has particularly been attacking you. Even Greybeard's recent post only stated that you seemed to have too much time on your hands and not a lot of serious thinking required of you, so you decided to play this Tulpa game and got a little overly wrapped up in it. This does not equate to assuming you are an idiot. As I said before, just the fact that you are still so young makes this sort of obsession a very common scenario.

No, not really. You and I both know that "tulpae" are a construct. Both of us know they are unfalsifiable. I have made points and asked questions before and you ignored them. Were you "off topic" or just ignoring?

Whatever your answer, it is a comment on tulpaWikie. Believing this sort of thing that originated with illiterate and superstitious peasants who live in an oxygen-deprived area is unlikely to advance the cause of mankind. It seems one step behind the basics of Christianity.

Quote

First off, you're assuming i am an idiot.

Your spelling and vocabulary seem OK, your ability to explain the inexplicable is on song. Idiots usually have simpler delusions. I can't recall saying your an idiot.

Quote

Secondly it is off topic. (By a moderator i might add.)

How so? It's about tulpae. I am only a mod when I'm writing in green.

Quote

Lastly, this is the chatter section of the forum, its made for anything, right?

I think your analysis has let you down. If it is about anything then why is my post not "anything"? and how could it be "off-topic"?

Quote

EDIT: I might add, how exactly does a tulpa is defies laws, what laws?

Can we call it "the concept of tulpae? Is that OK with you? I mention this because if we don't someone will start thinking that they are real. Right: here's the magic and the defiance of physical laws:

From Wiki

Quote

Tulpa [...] often translated as "magical emanation",[3] "conjured thing" [4] and "phantom" [5] is a concept in mysticism of a being or object which is created through sheer spiritual or mental discipline alone. It is defined in Indian Buddhist texts as any unreal, illusory or mind created apparition. According to Alexandra David-Néel, tulpas are "magic formations generated by a powerful concentration of thought." It is a materialized thought that has taken physical form and is usually regarded as synonymous to a thoughtform.[6]

More magic there than in Hogwarts, isn't there?

Quote

I mean, the brain can do all kinds of crazy stuff,

Were I to look for proof that the brain can do crazy stuff, I need only look for a defence or explanation of tulpae ; )

But on a more logical note, your sentence just above and the ones following (below), are simply saying "Wow! Who knows what the brain can do? No-one right?Therefore there are tulpae/gods/pixies/ghosts/etc." It is the fallacy of the appeal to ignorance[1]and it doesn't wash.

Quote

[...] then there is all the other kinds of *sic* mental disorders that lead to normally impossible things (MPD, schizophrenia, etc).

Mental disorders do not lead to "normally impossible things." Untreated, they can be a serious illness that makes people believe they can do, and/or are experience, what you and I would call "normally impossible things" or, more technically, a delusion. Any "magic" is purely a subjective part of a delusional process. I cite tulpae as a prime example of what may be a self-induced delusion.

Quote

I did not come here as a "messiah" of tulpae (how would that even work?).

Well, you could start a thread that offered to answer questions about tulpae - Try a Jehovah's Witness or a Mormon who "just wants to answer your questions about Jesus." The word you want is not "messiah" but "missionary."

Quote

I only wanted a nice Q&A...

We give Q's and you give A's... As they don't exist, how could you answer?

Quote

If you feel like you must, lock this thread, its been derailed long enough anyway

I have explained that I am not, for the purpose of this thread, a Mod. and being as I have commented directly to you, the OP, I could not possibly use my position, it would be unjust. Also, I would not want to do that.

Quote

guess i will just start posting atheist stuff...

The forum is open to all ideas. I think that the overarching rule is something like, "Defend your position against all reasonable criticism whilst supplying good evidence."

However, and I have come across this before, a poster will rubbish the standard religions and then pronounce that there is substance in a particular fluffy-bunny type of alternative "woo" and (surprisingly) expect that it be taken seriously. They are often disappointed.

Edit to add:A&A: I should probably have read jynnan tonnix's post before I wrote this. I now see that you are in your mid-teens. I like her post. It has a lot of good points in it. On the plus-side, it does mean that I took you to be somewhat older, which is a compliment to your writing abilities. I would simply urge you not to accept any claims of magical being or doings; to always ask, "What is the real reason?" and never to fall into the trap of the fallacy of the Argument from Ignorance.

I'm 16 actually. (July 10th 1997)And your post was rather a derailment, as the topic is for asking questions, not making statements.Lastly, where is every one here coming up with "A tulpa is not a separate entity."?I have stated several times that i agree, so why bring it up even more? Do you want me to lie or something? I don't know.But I do believe that tulpae are distinct, in some form, neuroscience is odd...

Fifteen or sixteen, my point still stands. You are very young, and your mind still has a lot of maturing ahead of it. You may be fairly intelligent for your age, but a mid-teen nonetheless.

As for a statement "derailing" the thread, I'm not sure you really have a case for that. A statement, in this case, can easily be turned to a question without really altering anything. If I had prefaced my post with, "the way it sounds to me", and followed it up with "is that right, or does it make sense at all?", would that have made a difference? You can still answer the points made.

As for whether or not this thread should be locked (as you bring up in a further post), I don't know. There's still a lot which is interesting about the premise, and it could probably be discussed with or without you. As long as you keep contradicting yourself in your statements as much as you have been, there isn't much we can really learn from you specifically about the theories of Tulpae. Not that there seems to be much in the way of concrete ideas of what they are anyway. One of the links you posted said something to the effect that there was probably a different idea of exactly what a Tulpa was for every person who had played with creating one. Hmm...sounds just like Jesus.

Anyway, no one has particularly been attacking you. Even Greybeard's recent post only stated that you seemed to have too much time on your hands and not a lot of serious thinking required of you, so you decided to play this Tulpa game and got a little overly wrapped up in it. This does not equate to assuming you are an idiot. As I said before, just the fact that you are still so young makes this sort of obsession a very common scenario.

Would you agree? (there, I made it a question).

I would not say my age has any factors in this.I spend about one hour or less a day on Alexis, I also only have a part time job, any other time is eating and playing videogames... (Ironically, i am underweight, not fat...)I actually spend a large amount of my day learning, be it reading new words, researching technology (mostly war machines and explosives...), and learning more about biology.And i must say Graybeard is wrong, i created this topic because i wanted a Q&A, not because i had time to spare. If i had time to spare, and i did not want to care about this topic, i would have just played some video games and posted atheist stuff.

Logged

Rule 1: No pooftas. Rule 2: No maltreating the theists, IF, anyone is watching. Rule 3: No pooftas. Rule 4: I do not want to see anyone NOT drinking after light out. Rule 5: No pooftas. Rule 6: There is NO...rule 6.

No, not really. You and I both know that "tulpae" are a construct. Both of us know they are unfalsifiable. I have made points and asked questions before and you ignored them. Were you "off topic" or just ignoring?

Sorry, must have missed them, ill take a look.*looks*That post in a nutshell is stating i have no critical thinking skills and that i am stupid.If i had no critical thinking skills, i would of been a drooling theist zombie by now, as for the stupid part, while not impressive, i am in the "Pathfinder" class in my school, in other words the class made up of the smartest in the school. I would say a tulpa is a construct.

Whatever your answer, it is a comment on tulpaWikie. Believing this sort of thing that originated with illiterate and superstitious peasants who live in an oxygen-deprived area is unlikely to advance the cause of mankind. It seems one step behind the basics of Christianity.

The actual concept has changed now to be honest, and i never claimed it would advance humanity. *undervoice* Stupid theists and their no stemcell research...

Topic requests questions about tulpae, not statements about delusions and whether or not someone is an idiot.I was getting at the irony of a moderator (who should be a role model and follow the rules) being off-topic, which generally is a bad thing.

EDIT: I might add, how exactly does a tulpa is defies laws, what laws?

Can we call it "the concept of tulpae? Is that OK with you? I mention this because if we don't someone will start thinking that they are real. Right: here's the magic and the defiance of physical laws:

From Wiki

Quote

Tulpa [...] often translated as "magical emanation",[3] "conjured thing" [4] and "phantom" [5] is a concept in mysticism of a being or object which is created through sheer spiritual or mental discipline alone. It is defined in Indian Buddhist texts as any unreal, illusory or mind created apparition. According to Alexandra David-Néel, tulpas are "magic formations generated by a powerful concentration of thought." It is a materialized thought that has taken physical form and is usually regarded as synonymous to a thoughtform.[6]

More magic there than in Hogwarts, isn't there?

*Laughs maniacally* It's hilarious because not a single modern tulpamancer believes in that what so ever. (Okay...a few do...obviously they have had no luck...)The process is now different, the concept is different, the end result is different, i'm actually surprised they still use the word tulpa.Obviously religions *dun dun dun!* would believe that tulpae can be physical formed and are magic. (ironically, Christians believe they are evil demons.)

Were I to look for proof that the brain can do crazy stuff, I need only look for a defence or explanation of tulpae ; )

But on a more logical note, your sentence just above and the ones following (below), are simply saying "Wow! Who knows what the brain can do? No-one right?Therefore there are tulpae/gods/pixies/ghosts/etc." It is the fallacy of the appeal to ignorance[1]and it doesn't wash.

which is when someone says, "We don't know everything therefore fairies could well exist

No, i did not state "Who knows what the brain can do?", I affirmed that the brain is capable of "crazy stuff", that said, that is not the best thing to defend with, sorry.My stand is essentially going "We know that the brain can do things similar, is it not possible for this?".

[...] then there is all the other kinds of *sic* mental disorders that lead to normally impossible things (MPD, schizophrenia, etc).

Mental disorders do not lead to "normally impossible things." Untreated, they can be a serious illness that makes people believe they can do, and/or are experience, what you and I would call "normally impossible things" or, more technically, a delusion. Any "magic" is purely a subjective part of a delusional process. I cite tulpae as a prime example of what may be a self-induced delusion.

From what i know of, the only delusion is the start of a tulpa, where you must believe it exists, although it does not.

I did not come here as a "messiah" of tulpae (how would that even work?).

Well, you could start a thread that offered to answer questions about tulpae - Try a Jehovah's Witness or a Mormon who "just wants to answer your questions about Jesus." The word you want is not "messiah" but "missionary."

Theist= I know how everything ever was made, ask me questions.Me= I happen to be part of a subjective phenomenon, ask me questions.

One is horridly impossible, the other is plausible.And i am not here as a missionary, as i am not going around saying "Make tulpa, or else they will send you to hell!".

We give Q's and you give A's... As they don't exist, how could you answer?

A few people here seem to accept the possibility of tulpae, and they have asked questions that have answers in the phenomenon. I answered them to the best of tulpamancers (I love how tulpamancer attempts to correct to necromancer.) knowledge.

If you feel like you must, lock this thread, its been derailed long enough anyway

I have explained that I am not, for the purpose of this thread, a Mod. and being as I have commented directly to you, the OP, I could not possibly use my position, it would be unjust. Also, I would not want to do that.

I am confused, you find this topic utterly useless to society, know that i cannot prove it, and yet still don't want to lock it?...That's rather impartial xD.

However, and I have come across this before, a poster will rubbish the standard religions and then pronounce that there is substance in a particular fluffy-bunny type of alternative "woo" and (surprisingly) expect that it be taken seriously. They are often disappointed.

I am not disappointed, and have stated before that your disbelief is more than justified.And it seems a few here have taken it literally, for what it is worth...I find that theists though will never accept defeat, or post negatives (excluding hell.).

I would simply urge you not to accept any claims of magical being or doings; to always ask, "What is the real reason?" and never to fall into the trap of the fallacy of the Argument from Ignorance.

I don't believe in magic, i used to when i was like...5? Maybe 4. Then again, i also believed in dragons and god...eh...And i always look for a logical answer, sometimes i fail, but at-least i get A for effort.

Logged

Rule 1: No pooftas. Rule 2: No maltreating the theists, IF, anyone is watching. Rule 3: No pooftas. Rule 4: I do not want to see anyone NOT drinking after light out. Rule 5: No pooftas. Rule 6: There is NO...rule 6.

Read back through this second set of quotes, and explain in what way exactly all those traits (all your own words) mean the tulpa is NOT a separate and distinct entity? How they are SO dissimilar from a person with MPD?

…..If you stand behind that second bunch of your quotes, then at the VERY least you are creating something that is indistinguishable from MPD. A specifically dangerous second entity, as "alive" and conscious and sentient as any one of us, with independent will and desire, and the ability to bring itself to the fore and take over your body.

Creating a tulpa is possibly the most stupid and dangerous activity you can take within your own mind, if they are as real as you imply.

Okay. So you are now at "a tulpa is a separate identity", and (using that link) it seems that you are standing behind everything in that second block of quotes.....but ignored the points I was making and the questions I was asking.

1) How is a person with a tulpa distinct from a person with MPD, given everything you say applies to a tulpa?2) Given you are creating a separate entity that can make its own decisions, dislikes being forced to change, has a full personality with all human traits, is self-aware, capable of taking action on its own, can affect its creator, take them over, and lock them in their own mind…..would you agree that creating such a thing is intrinsically very dangerous? And as such, is at best naïve, at worst particularly stupid?

Bottom line: you have deliberately chosen to create a new sentient entity within your own mind, with the capability and motivation to try to force "you" out and take over. Can you explain why this is a good idea?

1) How is a person with a tulpa distinct from a person with MPD, given everything you say applies to a tulpa?

After some more research, i would say they are rather similar, but MPD is a dissorder, while a tulpa is a creation. MPD also hinges on simply being a separate personality, while tulpae are generally more distinct.

2) Given you are creating a separate entity that can make its own decisions, dislikes being forced to change, has a full personality with all human traits, is self-aware, capable of taking action on its own, can affect its creator, take them over, and lock them in their own mind…..would you agree that creating such a thing is intrinsically very dangerous? And as such, is at best naïve, at worst particularly stupid?

A tulpa may not have every human trait, and may like being changed. It depends on the tulpa itself and what the creator gave it.Much like how a tulpa can normally only "take over" if given consent, even then, the creator can usually take back control (according to forums, there has been irreversible take overs...)I would agree that tulpae can be dangerous, but not more-so than any actual human.If you were to make a tulpa, you would be nice to it like everyone else, no? So it would have no reason to retaliate.And tulpae can affect the creator positively i might add, be it massage (Oddly relaxing, have done it before..), lower pain, give moral support, etc.

Bottom line: you have deliberately chosen to create a new sentient entity within your own mind, with the capability and motivation to try to force "you" out and take over. Can you explain why this is a good idea?

Alexis has neither the ability, nor motivation to "force me out" , why would i make my tulpa hate me by default?I would not trust anything with the power to control me, i can assume you would agree.I would say making a tulpa is good, or bad, determined by the person. I would quite like something to talk to when i am alone (which is a lot of the time.), some might agree.Others would dislike a constant companion.

(offtopic, what is your motivation anyway? Not to be rude, or make untrue statements, but if you don't believe in tulpae, why ask such questions?)Thanks for the questions though.

Logged

Rule 1: No pooftas. Rule 2: No maltreating the theists, IF, anyone is watching. Rule 3: No pooftas. Rule 4: I do not want to see anyone NOT drinking after light out. Rule 5: No pooftas. Rule 6: There is NO...rule 6.

Given your age I suspect that you may be more impressionable than some of the hardend cynics here so I take the "crazy or POE" comment back.

Heheh, i'm certainly not POE.I'm also not (very) crazy.

Logged

Rule 1: No pooftas. Rule 2: No maltreating the theists, IF, anyone is watching. Rule 3: No pooftas. Rule 4: I do not want to see anyone NOT drinking after light out. Rule 5: No pooftas. Rule 6: There is NO...rule 6.

1) How is a person with a tulpa distinct from a person with MPD, given everything you say applies to a tulpa?

After some more research, i would say they are rather similar, but MPD is a dissorder, while a tulpa is a creation. MPD also hinges on simply being a separate personality, while tulpae are generally more distinct.

Distinct in what way? I'm still going from that list from your quotes, they all seemed to describe a personality to me. It also sounds like you are quibbling over the terms "disorder" and "creation". I'm asking you what the differences are in the end results.

2) Given you are creating a separate entity that can make its own decisions, dislikes being forced to change, has a full personality with all human traits, is self-aware, capable of taking action on its own, can affect its creator, take them over, and lock them in their own mind…..would you agree that creating such a thing is intrinsically very dangerous? And as such, is at best naïve, at worst particularly stupid?

Much like how a tulpa can normally only "take over" if given consent, even then, the creator can usually take back control (according to forums, there has been irreversible take overs...)I would agree that tulpae can be dangerous, but not more-so than any actual human.If you were to make a tulpa, you would be nice to it like everyone else, no? So it would have no reason to retaliate.

Note my bolds.

I'm sure you would be nice to it. But consider this: your claim is that the tulpa has the same kind of feelings and thoughts and drives as any regular human - "all the human traits", I believe you said. Now consider this: how would YOU feel, trapped in a body you cannot control, subject entirely to the whims of the creator, "taken out and played with" at his pleasure? You may be the nicest jailer in the world, but at the end of the day, jailer you are. Think about your own quote:

I would not trust anything with the power to control me, i can assume you would agree.

That MUST perforce mean that Alexis does NOT trust you, does it not?

If a tulpa is TRULY as human as a human, then they will all, inevitably, wish for and strive for control. If you are saying that most tulpa do and will NOT do that, then they are NOT separate entities, and are just a highly-imagined imaginary friend, with all their responses being imagined by the creator, NOT generated by the "tulpa". I don't see how you can have it both ways, either they are distinct and will desire freedom, or they are the perfect Tamagotchi with no desires of their own.

(offtopic, what is your motivation anyway? Not to be rude, or make untrue statements, but if you don't believe in tulpae, why ask such questions?)Thanks for the questions though.

Because of my paragraph just above. Tulpa are EITHER just a super-imagined construct, no different ultimately than Bernie that I mentioned a few pages ago, or they are real and clear dangers indistinguishable from MPD.

If it’s the former, then I am continuing in this thread for the same reason I challenge ANY unsupported "woo" that people come up with. If the latter, then you are on a dangerous course that you are encouraging others to think is safe and dandy, and I will continue to argue those points until you can offer any reasoned arguments that there is no danger. Thus far, you've managed to avoid answering any of the tougher questions I've posed, normally by shifting your stance as soon as the debate goes too far one way or another.

1) How is a person with a tulpa distinct from a person with MPD, given everything you say applies to a tulpa?

After some more research, i would say they are rather similar, but MPD is a dissorder, while a tulpa is a creation. MPD also hinges on simply being a separate personality, while tulpae are generally more distinct.

Distinct in what way? I'm still going from that list from your quotes, they all seemed to describe a personality to me. It also sounds like you are quibbling over the terms "disorder" and "creation". I'm asking you what the differences are in the end results.

I'm sure you would be nice to it. But consider this: your claim is that the tulpa has the same kind of feelings and thoughts and drives as any regular human - "all the human traits", I believe you said. Now consider this: how would YOU feel, trapped in a body you cannot control, subject entirely to the whims of the creator, "taken out and played with" at his pleasure? You may be the nicest jailer in the world, but at the end of the day, jailer you are. Think about your own quote:

All the human traits..."generally" .What you also have to remember is that she as a body of her own control, she is as free as she wants to be, inside my head...9_6At the moment i do have to force her a bit to get stuff going, but eventually she should start up on her own.Would you say that every human, who simply cannot be physical, would take over its creator, although it already had a form?

If a tulpa is TRULY as human as a human, then they will all, inevitably, wish for and strive for control. If you are saying that most tulpa do and will NOT do that, then they are NOT separate entities, and are just a highly-imagined imaginary friend, with all their responses being imagined by the creator, NOT generated by the "tulpa". I don't see how you can have it both ways, either they are distinct and will desire freedom, or they are the perfect Tamagotchi with no desires of their own.

Because of my paragraph just above. Tulpa are EITHER just a super-imagined construct, no different ultimately than Bernie that I mentioned a few pages ago, or they are real and clear dangers indistinguishable from MPD.

Neither, a tulpa is *copy* *paste* A tulpa is a consciousness that is very much like your own, in that has its own opinions, preferences, personality and so on. It can communicate with you, can have its own form, and can understand you like no one else could. It can give you second opinions on things and come up with original ideas of its own. A tulpa lives inside your brain, very much like you do.

If it’s the former, then I am continuing in this thread for the same reason I challenge ANY unsupported "woo" that people come up with. If the latter, then you are on a dangerous course that you are encouraging others to think is safe and dandy, and I will continue to argue those points until you can offer any reasoned arguments that there is no danger. Thus far, you've managed to avoid answering any of the tougher questions I've posed, normally by shifting your stance as soon as the debate goes too far one way or another.

I admit, I made the topic with a rather large lack of information.Hence i didn't know what to say xD.I have never stated tulpae are fine and dandy, i have said they can be good, and can be bad. Impartial.Sorry if i avoided any questions, re-post them and i will begin answering them ASAP.

Rule 1: No pooftas. Rule 2: No maltreating the theists, IF, anyone is watching. Rule 3: No pooftas. Rule 4: I do not want to see anyone NOT drinking after light out. Rule 5: No pooftas. Rule 6: There is NO...rule 6.

But consider this: your claim is that the tulpa has the same kind of feelings and thoughts and drives as any regular human - "all the human traits", I believe you said. Now consider this: how would YOU feel, trapped in a body you cannot control, subject entirely to the whims of the creator, "taken out and played with" at his pleasure? You may be the nicest jailer in the world, but at the end of the day, jailer you are. Think about your own quote:

All the human traits..."generally" .What you also have to remember is that she as a body of her own control, she is as free as she wants to be, inside my head...Would you say that every human, who simply cannot be physical, would take over its creator, although it already had a form?

Okay, so what human traits do tulpa NOT have? Be specific.See my bold in your response? Prisoners have all the freedom they want….in the exercise yard. And yes - I WOULD say that a creature with thoughts and feelings and desires, but which was trapped inside a body it was unable to control, subject to the whims of its jailer, would indeed try to "escape".

If you are trying to tell me that you have created a willing slave that thinks only what you think, then fine - but that is NOT the seperate identity you have been trying to push.

Okay, so what human traits do tulpa NOT have? Be specific.See my bold in your response? Prisoners have all the freedom they want….in the exercise yard. And yes - I WOULD say that a creature with thoughts and feelings and desires, but which was trapped inside a body it was unable to control, subject to the whims of its jailer, would indeed try to "escape".

The traits is determined by the tulpa, so i would not know.Again, she has her own body, while it is not physical, she indeed has one. She controls it, i do not.Why would a tulpa "desire" a takeover of the creators body? Last time i checked, friends don't do that...

If you are trying to tell me that you have created a willing slave that thinks only what you think, then fine - but that is NOT the seperate identity you have been trying to push.

A "willing slave" is a servitor, a tulpa is not.For example, you say to your tulpa "Tell me a joke". Depending on the tulpa, it will, or will not tell you a joke. A servitor will do what is asked of, regardless of any variables.And again, tulpae (generally) have different thoughts.

Logged

Rule 1: No pooftas. Rule 2: No maltreating the theists, IF, anyone is watching. Rule 3: No pooftas. Rule 4: I do not want to see anyone NOT drinking after light out. Rule 5: No pooftas. Rule 6: There is NO...rule 6.

Prisoners have all the freedom they want….in the exercise yard. And yes - I WOULD say that a creature with thoughts and feelings and desires, but which was trapped inside a body it was unable to control, subject to the whims of its jailer, would indeed try to "escape".

Again, she has her own body, while it is not physical, she indeed has one. She controls it, i do not.Why would a tulpa "desire" a takeover of the creators body? Last time i checked, friends don't do that...

She has her own body - what does that mean? I know that you picture her with a body, but she clearly does not interact with the physical environment. YOU choose if your body goes for a walk, watches TV, reads a book - ALL sensory inputs to Alexis come from YOUR choices. She has no control over the environment she is in, over the inputs she receives.

You are correct. Friends do not take over friends. I am sure that is what every other person who got taken over by a tulpa thought. My point is that no matter how good you may feel your friendship is, if your tulpa is indeed a seperate entity, that friendship may not change.

Question. Someone you consider a friend locks you in a little room, where the only connection to the outside world is a TV screen. You have no control over what that screen shows, no control over whether that screen is even on. Your "friend" determines what you see and experience, decides when and if they will talk to you.

Answer honestly. How long would you consider your captor a friend? How long would it take you, locked in your little room, to get to the point where your desire for freedom, for self-determination, would outweigh friendship?

I'm not arguing Alexis is your friend NOW. But I believe you said she is only a year or so old, and not fully formed. I am saying that at some point in future, friendship may change - as you agree it clearly has done for others.

Now, I know you identify as atheist, A&A, but just look at the parallels in the creation story. Or stories in any number of religions, actually. Although they are all mythology, the threads of human behavior make them something people recognize and respond to. The Christian concept of needing to be redeemed of sin, for instance, boils down to the universal truth that no one is perfect. So, basically, can we agree that the stories arose from an examination of how humans, in general, tend to behave?

So, you have god creating the angels. Which, despite living in heaven, directly with a perfect being, still rebel, resulting in Satan and other demons.

You have the Adam & Eve narrative, which shows that despite also living in a perfect environment, the tendency to disobey is always there. No matter that it is fiction, as I said, it illustrates the idea that humankind is something which will always seek to move outside the box. Even if the box is perfect.

So, given the notion that tulpae are essentially a separate, human consciousness, housed within a vessel which does not allow them autonomy in the physical world, how is it that they would not yearn for more? Like Anfauglir's analogy of a supposed friend locking you in a box with him as the sole source of your entertainment or experience, how would that not become an unbearably limited existence?

I don't think tulpae are an independent human consciousness, based on what Angus has said here. The way he consistently describes Alexis as acting sounds more like an AI virtual construct than a human consciousness. In other words, tulpae aren't like MPD, which creates independent human personalities. It's basically like giving an imaginary friend a mind of its own, and thinking about it so long and so hard that it continues to exist (within the imagination) even when you aren't thinking about it.

That means that a tulpa is dependent - it needs the creator's imagination to exist. It literally can't exist without its creator's goodwill, and it can't exist outside the imagination in any case. However, since it has volition, it can probably utilize the same brain mechanics that create the imagination to keep itself entertained, and if it gets bored, it can always interact with its creator.

Yes, that is my feeling as well, but it's an issue which Angus seems to be going back and forth with somewhat. And to some extent, what he actually believes is as important as what is actually true. It seems to me that someone who owns that a tulpa is merely a construct of the imagination, with no actual free will of its own, but dependent on the whims of its creator is one thing, but someone who believes that a tulpa does have independent consciousness might be far more likely to subconsciously allow his tulpa to act in ways which might be contrary to even his own perceived morality if he had repressed anger issues or something.

Not trying to psychoanalyze Angus personally, but as a general possibility.

You mean like when you pray to God or pray to a milk-jug, your prayer might or might not be answered?

Even I can tell that's not what Angus meant, and I generally suck at reading intent and meaning over the Internet.

Looking over your past posts in this thread, it seems like you're trying to show that tulpae are nothing more than the same sort of "supernatural woo" that religions attempt to pull. I don't doubt that a number of people actually do think like that.

However, I'm reminded of something else from the wiki article: "As the Tibetan use of the tulpa concept is described in the book Magical Use of Thoughtforms, the student was expected to come to the understanding that the tulpa was just a hallucination." In other words, it looks like the original purpose of tulpa-creation was not to create 'woo' that people should believe in, but to teach them how to recognize the difference between a hallucination and reality, and ultimately to remove the hallucination from themselves.

So you DO control her? Perhaps you need to define "control" and "force" as you are using them - I don't see a distinction.

Control would be like using her as a puppet (called puppeting in tulpamancer terms.), literally moving her without her consent.Forcing, in tulpamancer terms is designing the tulpa, you do not force a complete tulpa, well you can, not good though...

She has her own body - what does that mean? I know that you picture her with a body, but she clearly does not interact with the physical environment. YOU choose if your body goes for a walk, watches TV, reads a book - ALL sensory inputs to Alexis come from YOUR choices. She has no control over the environment she is in, over the inputs she receives.

Not particularly, she feels what i feel and sees what i see, what she makes of that input is up to her.Remember that "her" environment is in my head, she has controls it while i am not there.

You are correct. Friends do not take over friends. I am sure that is what every other person who got taken over by a tulpa thought. My point is that no matter how good you may feel your friendship is, if your tulpa is indeed a seperate entity, that friendship may not change.

Not really, according to a few logs of tulpamancers who where apparently possessed, they ended up letting their tulpa take over because they liked them so darn much.Then there is the tulpamancers who treated their tulpa's really badly.But of course, there is the odd few that are apparently taken over without reason, i ponder why...But surely a mistake that i would obviously not make. (hopefully)

Question. Someone you consider a friend locks you in a little room, where the only connection to the outside world is a TV screen. You have no control over what that screen shows, no control over whether that screen is even on. Your "friend" determines what you see and experience, decides when and if they will talk to you.

Answer honestly. How long would you consider your captor a friend? How long would it take you, locked in your little room, to get to the point where your desire for freedom, for self-determination, would outweigh friendship?

Considering in this situation i am a tulpa, and thus understand that i am a tulpa, a construct, and that in my own place i can do pretty much anything i want.I talk to my creator, and enjoy my life, not needing feeble requirements like "air" and "food".Your analogy was rather flawed to be honest.

I'm not arguing Alexis is your friend NOW. But I believe you said she is only a year or so old, and not fully formed. I am saying that at some point in future, friendship may change - as you agree it clearly has done for others.

Less than a year old (...Started on 14th june 2013...)According to Alexis, she does not care about being a tulpa, but it is possible for deviation to occur.I guess in that case, i would have to rethink the situation, no?

I don't think tulpae are an independent human consciousness, based on what Angus has said here. The way he consistently describes Alexis as acting sounds more like an AI virtual construct than a human consciousness. In other words, tulpae aren't like MPD, which creates independent human personalities. It's basically like giving an imaginary friend a mind of its own, and thinking about it so long and so hard that it continues to exist (within the imagination) even when you aren't thinking about it.

That means that a tulpa is dependent - it needs the creator's imagination to exist. It literally can't exist without its creator's goodwill, and it can't exist outside the imagination in any case. However, since it has volition, it can probably utilize the same brain mechanics that create the imagination to keep itself entertained, and if it gets bored, it can always interact with its creator.

Possibly, i know for fact that tulpae start degrading without the creators interaction. So tulpae are not 100% independent.

Yes, that is my feeling as well, but it's an issue which Angus seems to be going back and forth with somewhat. And to some extent, what he actually believes is as important as what is actually true. It seems to me that someone who owns that a tulpa is merely a construct of the imagination, with no actual free will of its own, but dependent on the whims of its creator is one thing, but someone who believes that a tulpa does have independent consciousness might be far more likely to subconsciously allow his tulpa to act in ways which might be contrary to even his own perceived morality if he had repressed anger issues or something.

Not trying to psychoanalyze Angus personally, but as a general possibility.

If you are attempting to say that Alexis would make me act immorally, you are wrong.I would not dare hurt anyone, unlike the apish brute excuses of humans here (in my city), hell, Alexis wouldn't either, scratch that, she can get feisty....I also like to fight verbally (making smart remarks, not insults though), rather than physically.

Edit: Fixed Quotes

« Last Edit: October 03, 2013, 03:15:31 AM by Anfauglir »

Logged

Rule 1: No pooftas. Rule 2: No maltreating the theists, IF, anyone is watching. Rule 3: No pooftas. Rule 4: I do not want to see anyone NOT drinking after light out. Rule 5: No pooftas. Rule 6: There is NO...rule 6.

Remember that "her" environment is in my head, she has controls it while i am not there.

It sounds like you are suggesting that, at least occasionally, you are not in your own head and Alexis is in control of it. I'm almost sure that's not what you actually meant, but I would appreciate clarity on this point. I'm trying to avoid making a value judgment about this whole topic, in light of information like this:

However, I'm reminded of something else from the wiki article: "As the Tibetan use of the tulpa concept is described in the book Magical Use of Thoughtforms, the student was expected to come to the understanding that the tulpa was just a hallucination." In other words, it looks like the original purpose of tulpa-creation was not to create 'woo' that people should believe in, but to teach them how to recognize the difference between a hallucination and reality, and ultimately to remove the hallucination from themselves.

When viewed from the perspective described above, it makes a great deal of sense as a tool. I'm still not convinced that this isn't a dangerous thing to deliberately introduce to one's own brain as a companion (which assumes an ongoing existence), but that's just my opinion and I recognize it as such.

Logged

“Be skeptical. But when you get proof, accept proof.” –Michael Specter

I don't think tulpae are an independent human consciousness, based on what Angus has said here. The way he consistently describes Alexis as acting sounds more like an AI virtual construct than a human consciousness. In other words, tulpae aren't like MPD, which creates independent human personalities. It's basically like giving an imaginary friend a mind of its own, and thinking about it so long and so hard that it continues to exist (within the imagination) even when you aren't thinking about it.

jaimehlers, I mostly agree with you but I'll be nitpicky for one second and say that the identities people with MPD (now called Dissociative Identity Disorder / DID) create don't have to be human. They can be, like the friend Angus made, a pony. But the vast majority of personalities are normal run-of-the-mill humans.

Here's a question: Can an imaginary friend become a dissociative identity?

I have no idea. I don't know if there has been any research at all involving DID and imaginary friends in adults. Like it's been said earlier in this thread, when it comes to imaginary friends the creator is thinking up and providing the source material for thoughts and actions of the created friends. However, with a dissociative personality, the manifested personality speaks and acts for itself. If this is what is trying to be achieved by creating tulpas AND if it is even possible, then I think people should be very careful. If an imaginary friend like "Alexis" can become a dissociative identity I don't think thought-forming a tulpa is anything close to healthy. You would be willingly creating a mental disorder in yourself.

Edit: I'd love to see some MRIs of brain activity in adults with imaginary friends, people suffering from DID, and people creating tulpas.

It sounds like you are suggesting that, at least occasionally, you are not in your own head and Alexis is in control of it. I'm almost sure that's not what you actually meant, but I would appreciate clarity on this point.

Okay.So, you got your tulpa, ok?Now, you got your mind, ok?You make place in your mind for the tulpa to be free and reside when not active (i personally chose a beachfront, ironically Alexis does not like getting wet).When you force the tulpa, interact with it, do mental tasks with it, you go there.Meanwhile while you are not there, the tulpa can do as it pleases (Alexis seems to have a habit of making renders of other ponies look like her, adding to her form...)

Here's a question: Can an imaginary friend become a dissociative identity?

Hmm, potentially it could, no?Often disorders can come from non-related issues, like stress and trauma, so maybe...

Logged

Rule 1: No pooftas. Rule 2: No maltreating the theists, IF, anyone is watching. Rule 3: No pooftas. Rule 4: I do not want to see anyone NOT drinking after light out. Rule 5: No pooftas. Rule 6: There is NO...rule 6.